Williams ws. Rankin

Hi Bill

The idea came from a paper Tom sent me when I first joined the SACA. The paper came from a Road & Track artcical. [www.aurasystems.com] had developed the valves for an IC engine. Looks like they went another direction though. There is nothing about the valve on their site anymore. It is in that artical that I found the timming limits for the vlaves to be 4 ms (the best they could do at the time).

My design uses two co-operatoring valves per port. In operation they are like valves in series with one controling opening and the other controling closing. They are not really in series. In operation they alternate open and closing functions. The valves are hollow tubes in a cylander and butt against each other when closed. The containing cylander, at it's center, has a port or gap open to the engine cylander. The butt seal conserns me the most. I had my doubts about it working. But from some decusssions on pupett valves I think it might work. The port is a gap both valves move across. Closed both valves are butted together at one side of the port gap.. On opening: the one covering the port is released and is driven to the other side by the springs where it is latched. On (cutoff), the other valve is released and it's springs drive it toword the other side where it buttes against the opening valve and is latched. Closing can be started before the port is fully open. When the open duration is less then the travel time across the port the closing valve, following the opening valve across the port, would reduce the opening to the gap beteen the valves. Like your design at short duration my valves restrict flow. Being electronicly controled these valves can have quite varing timming. Can open and close at any point in the stroke. I hope to use that to throttle steam. For self starting the valves can be fired off very close to gether at any point in the stroke. Steam flow would be restricted by the gap. I HOPE.

Andy

Andy,

At 4,000 Rpm my valve will open or close in 0.000625 seconds. At .004 seconds we would be equivalent at 625 RPM. That is where 4 milliseconds is equal to 15 degrees of crank. Under that RPM the electric would be ahead.

There are a few tricks to this stuff though and it wouldn't suprise me if the electrics speed could be doubled.

When I get this thing going, if I find that faster valve speeds will improve performance enough, then the old plan "B" thingy will get it's chance.

Best Regards, and good stalking ---------- Bill G.

Hi Bill.

With cutoff control, cutoff increases with RPM. With a 3:1 expansion in each stage the max cutoff is about 30% with a clearance of 3%. Or 60 degrees. With a min duration 0.004 seconds the engine could make 2500 RPM.

Andy

Andy,

To clear something up, is the time of 0.004 seconds for the valve mechanism to go from open to close, or from close to open to close?

Either way isn't there a lot of area where the valve port is being restricted by the timeing overlap? I am thinking that for the roughly 60 degrees of inlet opening to get 30% cutoff at 2500 RPMs the closing valve would be chasing the opening valve so closely that the port would be shut.

Best ---- Bill G.

Hi Bill

If I were able to run 2500 RPM it would be about the max. The cutoff would be greater then 30% by that point. I am figuring on being at around 30% cutoff at 75 MPH. The clearance would be at minum. For increased power cutoff would, sacrificing efficiency, keep increasing.

The valves do restrict when flow when opening an closeing as any valve does. But as you not there can be further restriction when closing starts before fully open.

Main reasion for going to three stages is to have thoes long cutoffs that are within the valves speed capibility.

I am just now starting on the valves. The artical wasn't real clear on the 4 ms time. But from the RPM limit for an IC engine I think it was close-open-close time. But will test that out. I am assumong it is just close-open or open to close time for now. If that be the case anything under 4 ms duration woulld not atain max opening.

Andy

HI Guys the green monster is half reincarnated. I steamed the boiler today the burner was better than ever.

FROM MARKS HANDBOOK 1930 EDITION
OBSERVER ENGINE STEAM LB. STEAM/IHP-HR.

STUMPF 24.5X39” 140 #, 376 DEG. F. 12.25
STUMPF ……….. 120 #, 490 DEG. F. 10.85
STUMPF ……….. 162 #, 518 DEG. F. 9.9
BURMEISTER &
WAIN 115 TO 220 H.P. 140 #, 667 DEG. F. 9.06 TO 9.68
LENTZ 100 H.P. 235 #, 923 DEG. F. 6.52
LENTZ 100 H.P. 461 #, 1018 DEG. F 5.67 HI Guys you can see that I am right high superheat is the way to go.
They had the magic oil in 1930. So lets get off our xxxs and get something done.

HI Guys sorry I messed up on the post. I will do it right to marl

Hi Guys, See if this is easier to read. Howard


FROM MARKS HANDBOOK 1930 EDITION


OBSERVER........... ENGINE............ STEAM LB. .................STEAM/IHP-HR.

STUMPF............. 24.5X39”........... 140 #, 376 DEG. F. ....... 12.25
STUMPF................................. 120 #, 490 DEG. F. ....... 10.85
STUMPF............. ................... 162 #, 518 DEG. F. ....... 9.9
BURMEISTER & WAIN . 115 TO 220 H.P. ... 140 #, 667 DEG. F. ....... 9.06 TO 9.68
LENTZ ............. 100 H.P. .......... 235 #, 923 DEG. F. ....... 6.52
LENTZ ..............100 H.P. .......... 461 #, 1018 DEG.F. ....... 5.67

Hi Howard

I agree that supper heat generally improves efficiency.

But when you are at a very high expansion ending close to the exhaust pressure, then increased supper heat could cause over expansion, below exhaust pressure.

As an example starting with steam at 500 PSIA at 875F and an expansion ratio of 16.60:1 you expand to 14.699 PSIA. Exhaust at 15.696. Increasing the inlet temperature to 1400F and expanding 16.60:1 you end it a pressure of 13.588 PSIA. You would be in over expansion for almost 6% of the stroke.

Attached is a MathCad work sheet PDF of the example given.

Andy

HI Andy take a look at the bottom row on the chart not too much over expansion there. And they hed the magic oil to. In1930.

Actually, expanding to 14.7 psi and exhausting to atmosphere may not be good practice in a uniflow. I'd think that if you expanded all the way to atmospheric pressure, there would be no differential pressure between the cylinder and atmosphere to induce any of the steam to leave the cylinder. Recompressing too much of the residual steam mass doesn't look like a good practice. At high speed you might get away with this depending on inertia of the steam in the cylinder, it may fling itself out of the cylinder and leave a partial vaccuum inside for the up stroke. Engine performance is now going to be highly speed dependant if this is the operating mode.

By the same token, expanding below atmospheric pressure isn't necessarily 'over expanding', it just shows that you need a better condenser. Expand that sucker as far as you can and condense subatmospheric is the way to go. I've seen turbines where the last three stages were all below atmospheric pressure and energy was being extracted from the steam in all three.

Ken

Ken,
If you read your posts, you will see that much earlier I said that to be really usable in an automobile, the unaflow engine ALWAYS needs a good vacuum on the exhaust in order to take full advantage of the expansion capability.
Read the two volumes by Stumph and other good engineering books on the unaflow. Also the SAE paper on the McCulloch car.
JC

Hi Kin.

You are right. However I was pointing out the fact that as you increase super heat, with a fixed expansion, the pressure drop during that expansion increasses. And if the origional expansion were close to the exhaust back pressure, that increased pressure drop possably could decrease efficiency by going exhaust pressure or below.

As you point out. Expanding close exhaust pressure could cause problems in a uniflow engine.

Andy

Hi Andy:

I already read the McCullouch info, and probably all of Stumpfs patents. Tell you what, I'll purchase and read both of Stumpfs books if you spend the next 3 or 4 years working in a steam turbine machinery room.

Regards,

Ken

Hi ken

I thought we were talking about piston engines. Turbines do not have a fixed expansion as piston engines do. Supper heat would never cause over expansion in a turbine.

I also never used atmosphere pressure in my example. Over expansion is expanding to below what ever the exhaust pressure might be. Could be 300 PSIA for a stage in a multi stage engine for example.

Jerry and I have both talked about over expansion. What gave you the idea that over expansion, in my post, ment expanding below atmosphere pressure?

Andy

Andy,

Folks have been agonising about petty issues such as over expansion and the like for many years but in the real world of running engines it is a non event. There are so many things going on that either assist or counter other things that you have to tune the engine for its best performance in a vehicle. This might require as little as one or two degrees change to the valve timing, slightly different steam conditions, compression or cut-off values.

With nobody building engines to gain practical knowledge of what is important and what isn't, no progress has been made for decades. Arguments about the 1942 (or so) test results from one Williams engine continue to this day - get a life and move on and build some real engines.

A comment on multi expansion engines with exotic valve gear is performance verses cost. At the end of the day you have to meet a customer's budget and I see only simple basic hardware blowing the exotic stuff away simply because the dollar cost of improvements may never be recovered in fuel savings. One person may want a $30k to $80k engine but I think if you want customers or steam club members in the future you need to look at some $1k solutions for engines and a similar amount for the boiler.

If steam hardware is going the be more expensive than other options there is no point in having it.

Graeme

Hi Andy:

My apologies, I misread something and came to the wrong conclusion. Damn annoying thing is I read it three times and came to the same conclusion, guess sleep deprivation will do that to you. The overtime ends next week and I get back to a normal schedule, hopefully that will help prevent future mistakes.

Regards,

Ken

Hi Graeme

I am a thinker more then a do-er. An engineering management idea, I learned many years ago while working for DEC, is that there are two types of people. Thinkers and doers. Thinkers work every thing out in great detail before they ever start. And most often never start. Doers just start right out building whatever. The thing is, either type along is not productive. The thinker never meats deadlines or never finishes. The doer produces a kludge that is impossable to maintain. That is if they ever gets it to work.. The managment idea is to form working groups/teams of thinkers and doers. A thinker, given enough time, will come up with the best soloution. A doer will come up with some soloution on time. The two together will come up with a good soloution on time.

So Graeme you are a doer and I am a thinker. No amount of telling each other we should be the other is going to change our nature. I think we are both way to old to change anyway. We need to use each others talents.

Andy

Hi Andy,

You need to be a thinker and do-er when trying to build something new. My cut-metal time is insignificant when compared to the amount of homework done before starting.

Theories have to be tested with practical experiments for verification so the thinkers are running blind. If you have 999 thinkers (many with conflicting ideas) and only one do-er in a group, the output will be poor. One do-er who can think will beat the lot if he learns along the way. Theory is not perfect and not everything gets covered. In an energy system the accumulated losses may be around 50% of what theory shows is available and a massive amount of fine tuning may not make much impact on this. You need a running system to test ideas one at a time to find out if a change really has a benefit that can be measured. Not enough of this is being done and steam power is just slipping further into the wilderness where others will suggest is the right place for it. Some thinking do-ers would not go astray.

Regards,

Graeme

Hi Graeme

There has been a lot done in steam science sense those old piston steamers ran.

With the curent IAPWS water and steam property formula we have some very acurate steam property values to work with. A much greater range temperatures and pressures now have know properties.

We have cheap fast computers that can analyze steam engines. What you are working is 100 year old steam science. My first goal is to come up with a good computer model for steam engines. One that eventually includes flow and heat transfer. The better we can mathmaticly model something the better we understand it.

I am working on a steam property/process plugin for vissim. Right now I have all of the basic function coded and they are checking out quite close to the test points. Still a few have a very small deviance. It tedious to get these formula coded correctly. The steam propertys are all based on a the dimensionless Helmholtz free energy equation. There two parts the real gas part and the ideal gas part. The real part is 56 term equation of unitless reduced temperature and unitless reduced density. reduced temperature is the critical temperature divided by the temperature in absolout units. degrees K or degrees R. The Ideal gas part is an 8 term equation. From thoes we derive 12 additional equations which are the first and second order partial derivities with respect to temperature and density. d H(t,d)/dt, d^2 H(t,d)/dt^2, d H(t,d)/dd, d^2 H(t,d)/dd^2, d^2 H(t,d)/9dtdv). Then the properties are given as formula of thoes 12 formula. for example pressure = d*R*T*(1+rD*(d Hr(rT, rD)/d(rD))). Sorry hard to write calcus formules here. You can download the PDF documants and other things form the IAPWS site:

[www.iapws.org]

I am implementing the IAPWS 95 scientific formula. I also use the IAPWS 97 IFC formulations and saturation formula from 1985 to speed up things.

Progress is slow as I don't get much time to work in this. Spend more time figuring out what I have already done.

Andy

Hi Gvagg the reason I post did vat chart. Is to show if you want performance 1920s steam conditions will not do it. There art enough BTU in it. WHY dozes eyer one has to bace varer dszines. On 1900 to 1920 junk? Wan the 1950s is here.

Howard, Good point. But this is 2006.

Howard,

High temperature steam engines have been around for 100 years and built by all the guys in your list. B&W started business in 1843 and are the current world leader in super critical technology. Lentz was building steam engines with Paxman from 1907 and Stumpf has engines mentioned from 1909. Serpollet had high temperature engines around 1900 also. I've followed Williams developments since about 1961 but still have not seen any details of how long their engines last at 1,000 deg F operation. Around 1974, SPS advised that there was no lubricant available for long life operation at that temperature. One of the claimed best steam cylinder oils on the current market, Green Velvet Syn A Min Formula 1, that is used by Skinner Unaflow engines still in service is only rated to about 725 deg F. I've seen some solid film lubricants rated for over 1000 deg F but took a back flip when I saw their life rating at only about 2 hours.

If you read my articles published all over for many years you would notice mention of the use of the highest practical steam inlet conditions to get best system economy. What that figure currently is will be determined by what you guys can build, not what the theory says might work best.

This is where you have a problem with paper designs not backed by real world,long life operating experience. Its going to take you a long time to prove 10,000 hour plus reliabilty and that is not even diesel engine standard. A 15 second sprint will prove nothing worthwhile.

You have to balance size, weight, fuel economy, whole life maintenance, reliability, life expectancy against initial and on-going costs. Many only focus on one item at a time without realising what its impact on the whole package really is. At this stage the biggest impact maybe on costs as the whole box of tricks is probably unaffordable for the guy who has to pay all the bills.

Regards,

Graeme

HI Gvagg I am not interested in tugboat engine. If it lasts 30 mints its good 60 minutes it’s too strong. Gvagg reed your post first you say there wore Larks of hi tenp engine van you say the oil wont do it what did they do. Did they dszied vim like the Williams so the oil dint get too hart. The Williams I rebuilt had no sine of being to hot,

HI Andy is 2006 but the last good engines wore belt in1500s`

Howard,

One of the most unsatisfactory aspects of studying modern steam engine developments is finding out what really happened with the endurance testing programs. A design specification may say one thing but the operator may spend most of the time running below maximum design conditions to get longer life. Does anyone have all the running log sheets for your engine that show how much running time it had and what was the inlet steam temperature?

When you see a lot of specs for high temperature steam engines but nobody selling suitable lubricants for them you have to start asking questions about how these engines might work in service and how long will they last.

The high compression Williams engines run very hot so cylinder lubrication looks a very high risk area. If the lubrication problem has not been solved it will not be a viable design for future use. If it has been solved none of us should have a lub problem.

We need some high level expert advice on this topic, not wild guesses.

Regards,

Graeme

Graeme,

Thanks for, at the very minimum, setting a base line for all this steam car stuff. Real world lubrication.
You put your finger on the exact problem that these phantom engines are going to face, providing the engine is actually ever built in the first place. If you cannot use the steam temperature you specify or want to use, then all this is simply wasted time, effort and money. Very high superheat is indeed a high risk area that is not easy to overcome, and that certainly includes high compression.
If you cannot make the engine live, then you are reduced to just what went on fifty years ago, modest water rates.

All who profess to be working on the engine problem, are only guessing. Until long term dyno runs are made, and VERIFIED, will anything new be observed. Today only Harry seems to be keeping accurate records and competently tests his engine. Actually, there really are no other new engines to test.
Computer simulations only tell one what page of the book he is on, not what happens in the real world.

McCulloch learned to their financial loss, just how nasty Abner's ideas of very high superheat actually were in real testing, they had to back down quite a bit.
Besler tried; but never found any oil that would hold up over 750°F boiler outlet temperature, and that was actually not the operating temperature in the cylinder.
He used Haughton #80 oil, the best anyone found at that time. Now not available.
Doble tried 900-1000°F in his reheat triples and they all failed and had rapid wear of the rings, and carbon formation. It is interesting to note that he stated in his notes that he wanted the cylinder wall temperature kept below 550°F, thus his cooled HP cylinders. Lubrication problems.
If you cannot use your high temperatures, then the engine is not going to give the expected efficiency you are proposing.

During the steam bus-car program in California, we never could find out just exactly what lubricant the Williams were using, in spite of constant high level inquiries. Even then, their claimed high compression caused a lot of discussion about how they lubricated the engine. Short term sure; but hundreds of hours was another matter and they would not reveal any data to support their claims.

They had been turned down for the govt. contracts and were most sour on this, and would not tell anyone anything, although their paranoia and secretive nature was the root cause. Considering the impossible requirements by the DOE and others with these bus and clean air car contracts, I cannot blame them. Impossible time tables and far less than adequate funding were no help either, and then open data to anyone, as your patent used in the contract is now government property.

There was one other aspect that always caused me considerable worry with all the new steam car work going on then. I constantly refered to this business in my reports; but was firmly told not to make an issue of it. What does that tell you?
They had the habit of glossing over the actual test data and extrapolating it to hoped for future improvement levels, with no test data to back it up. The academic approach, with no real steam car experience, that I do not like one bit.
Why? Because it kept the grant money coming in.
And, we found out in the end that the engines were run at far lower temperature than what was proposed in the initial contract proposals.

Let me propose this: If anyone in the steam car community wants to do a real test of ALL available steam cylinder oils, I have a new ASME flash test cup outfit, and will gladly ship it to anyone who would get samples of all the oils and find out just what they can stand for temperature. Literature claims notwithstanding.
This Green Velvet oil may or may not work higher than what we can use with Mobile or any other commercial superheat steam oils. No one knows for sure by personal use. Anyhow I make the offer.

Right now, I personally do not know of any superheat oil that will work over a long time over about 550°F.
This will limit the real efficiency of the engine, in spite of all the arm waving about ultra high compressions, variable clearance, trick valve gear, graphite composit piston rings, and all the rest of the unproven ideas.

Plus one other thing. Do not forget the cost of the materials needed in the steam generator coils, throttle, valve gear, and steam lines that will stand 1,000°F or higher for a long time safely. Now very expensive. Try pricing finned Hastalloy X tubing and you will see what I mean. In place of a $3,000.00 coil stack, think of a $8-12,000.00 version. Not many "developers" can afford that level.
There is also the matter of superheat control in a monotube at very high temperatures. Not at all established with certainty.
The Lamont does side step this issue.

Designing and actually building a new steam car powerplant that honestly uses all the available technology and material advances available is a daunting and costly proposition. Especially with private funds, just ask Harry what it costs.
The reciprocating engine is the one real weak link in this, and lubrication is the singular villain.
Thus, and in spite of the problems, I still look at a special turbine coupled with a CV transmission as one potential solution to doing a good job of it.
All this lubrication mess and a lot of other unacknowleded problems, like ring leakage, flow losses and such, are done away with.
I know the problems and pitfalls inherent in using a turbine, as I may be the only one who built a successful car using one, and had to solve them. Most, if not all, can be overcome with a special wheel design, one that is not new, just not used in a vehicle as yet. Nothing new, just careful application of known and proven technology.

Great fun nevertheless to consider one.

JC

I work in an automotive engine development environment day in and day out, the shops that actually fabricate experimental, prototype and pre-production engines. Every time I go to a SACA meet I run into someone who blithely tells me about their plans to manufacture steam autos and who offers insight into engine manufacturing practices of large manufacturers based on their superior observation platform somewhere distant from a real plant. For anyone contemplating production engines, I offer the following insight based on seeing what goes on around me daily.

Basically, if you can't verify a large number of qualities in both dyno and real world environments; and verify them for a large number of engines built with production processes and not just one specially prepared unit, then do not be surprised if you aren't taken seriously. I can't imagine anyone putting out money for a paper design and even a one off prototype may only appeal to fringe investors. Real money wants assurance that you can deliver, if it ain't a sure thing you are likely going to be disappointed as these guys have invested on way too many promising technologies that never QUITE panned out and are now gun shy. They have any number of excellent engineers, designers and technicians so offering them something that they 'only have to develop for market' isn't very alluring as they could do that themselves. Contrary to myth, ideas are often a dime a dozen, the expertise to realize the ideas in a very polished concrete form is the rarity.

I'm not even going to pretend the following list is comprehensive, but to be taken even faintly seriously a successful powertrain will:

* Be simple to operate under all conditions, idiot proof is a good starting point
* Be reasonably simple to service with average technicians
* Utilize readily available and relatively economic expendables such as fluids, belts, sensors and so forth. Be ready to get into bed with your supply chain.
* Possess extremely repeatable performance under widely varying conditions
* Be very tolerant of poor maintenance or operating practices
* Have the minimum number of components compatible with the desired mission
* Be built with the simplest and cheapest overall fabrication processes
* Have the cheapest overall material costs both in quality and quantity
* Be designed to be amenable to holding tight tolerances in manufacturing
* Be designed to be tolerant of manufacturing imperfections
* Prove highly reliable in dyno and real world tests
* Possess competitive overall economy including initial cost, service, maintenance and fuelling
* Be competitively compact and flexible to competently meet diverse applications

Oh,yeah, while doing all the above you also have to comply with every regulation and law that every legislature and regulatory body in your projected marketing regions have mandated.

All of the above means that a sucessful powertrain will be an incredibly integrated design. Anyone who thinks their pet theory will be enough to make it in this competitive market better go back to writing comic books. Thermodynamic theory is nice but you better have an eye on the international commodities market if you need special alloys. A couple buck a pound fluctuation in the price of, say, aluminum may bust your budget.

It doesn't matter how good it runs if an operator on the cell phone can trash it through inattention. Likewise, you better be able to get oil and filters from Auto Zone down on the corner and the local wrench jockey should be able to troubleshoot and fix the thing about as often as any competitors model.

Most things better be cast in rather than bolted on, and every hole you drill or tap, every surface you machine or grind is money going out the door so you better keep that to a minimum. Every different angle you machine from costs cycle time even with computer controlled machinery, that is money out the door. If you don't know what lost foam casting is, better study up, if you can't utilize it to the maximum you are already dead before starting. The closer you make your rough parts to finish size, the less waste and faster processing time, reducing that cash drain. Of course, too close and your waste goes up and it costs a fortune to scrap out nearly finished engines. Real engines today do things like cast oil galleries and fuel rails straight into the head rather than build it up from bits and pieces; takes a lot of cleverness to get ahead of that kind of tightfistedness.

Every machining operation is one more opportunity to screw something up. Every time you try to machine, turn, grind, burn or cut something other than a flat or perfectly round surface, straight line or a round hole, your cost and risk of screwing up climb dramatically. I don't care if a CNC machine CAN make a complex surface, it takes time to do that and the tools and fixtures have to be perfect; so price will go up accordingly. Every part you can buy from an established supplier is a bonus, especially if that part is so common that you can multisource it so that no one manufacturer is holding a gun to your head.

Oh yeah, you are going to need rigorous, intensive, ongoing, statistical quality control. You can't afford bad parts going out. CMM machines accurate to microns are taken for granted even in the development shops today. Critical surfaces such as those on crankshafts may have to be accurate to .0001 inch in diameter, roundness, parallelness, location, orientation and be polished to a demanding finish as well-not too rough so it doesn't wear and not too smooth so that it won't retain oil ideally. Problem is, too much quality control will make you too expensive to compete, so you have to ration quality as well. Don't ask me how, no one has gotten that right yet. The media and consumers pounce on recalls but also trumpet the car that is $100 cheaper, so you can see the problem.

My point is that the fabrication and manufacturing arts are actually the most important elements in commercial powertrain design. If you think otherwise I will bet you aren't in the industry. A very well made engine produced in a very efficient fashion of mediocre design will probably be a better running and greater commercial success than an engine of sublime basic design and just average implementation and construction.

Regards,

Ken



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2006 06:57PM by frustrated.

HI Jim and Frustrated you don’t get it. How many peel do you no? Vat derive a jet dater or a gas turbine motorcycle too werk. But peel will pay 100000$ or more. So what not a hot steam car or boat if it brase doum every 50 miles so watt. As too the oil the Williams wood runs on strait 40 motor oil the engine is designed so oil duns NART gut to hot. The oil duns not go in with the steam

All files from this thread

File Name	File Size		Posted by	Date
ThrottlingTurnDown.pdf	58.1 KB	open | download	Andy	11/22/2005	Read message
ThrottlingTurnDown.pdf	62.3 KB	open | download	Andy	11/22/2005	Read message
hydro.jpg	123.5 KB	open | download	HLS	02/14/2006	Read message
P1010001aa.JPG	113.5 KB	open | download	Rolly	03/09/2006	Read message
P1010003aa.JPG	66.8 KB	open | download	Rolly	03/09/2006	Read message
P1010002aa.JPG	65.3 KB	open | download	Rolly	03/09/2006	Read message
SingleExpansion Vs Co.pdf	111.7 KB	open | download	Andy	03/10/2006	Read message
SingleExpansion Vs Co.pdf	111.6 KB	open | download	Andy	03/13/2006	Read message
HLS Vs Compound size.pdf	112.1 KB	open | download	Andy	03/13/2006	Read message
HLS Vs Compound =PD.pdf	111.7 KB	open | download	Andy	03/13/2006	Read message
HLS engine.pdf	64.8 KB	open | download	Andy	03/14/2006	Read message
HLS engine.pdf	73.6 KB	open | download	Andy	03/15/2006	Read message
Rankin.pdf	171.9 KB	open | download	Andy	03/15/2006	Read message
HLS engine.pdf	74.6 KB	open | download	Andy	03/15/2006	Read message
Endiing temp 850.pdf	28.2 KB	open | download	Andy	10/02/2006	Read message
Endiing temp X27.pdf	28.1 KB	open | download	Andy	10/02/2006	Read message
Fickett.JPG	66.9 KB	open | download	frustrated	10/05/2006	Read message
Over Expansion 1.pdf	24.2 KB	open | download	Andy	10/24/2006	Read message
FlowSpeed.pdf	23.7 KB	open | download	Andy	11/14/2006	Read message
Material.pdf	16.9 KB	open | download	Rolly	11/20/2006	Read message
white cliffs project engine.jpg	499.8 KB	open | download	grblake	06/30/2007	Read message
SV pickup.jpg	81 KB	open | download	Rolly	07/05/2007	Read message
112908ab.jpg	82.3 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	11/29/2008	Read message
112908b1.jpg	87.6 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	11/29/2008	Read message
Dieter engine.pdf	294.8 KB	open | download	Rolly	11/30/2008	Read message
Bryan Tractor.JPG	108 KB	open | download	Rolly	12/01/2008	Read message
Bryan Engine photos.jpg	84.6 KB	open | download	Rolly	12/01/2008	Read message
p1010002aa.jpg	36.4 KB	open | download	Rolly	12/02/2008	Read message
tractor1.jpg	136.6 KB	open | download	frustrated	12/02/2008	Read message
tractor2.jpg	111.8 KB	open | download	frustrated	12/02/2008	Read message
Tractor3.jpg	137.9 KB	open | download	frustrated	12/02/2008	Read message
tractor4.jpg	159.5 KB	open | download	frustrated	12/02/2008	Read message
tractor5.jpg	113.6 KB	open | download	frustrated	12/02/2008	Read message
tractor6.jpg	98.1 KB	open | download	frustrated	12/02/2008	Read message
071709a.jpg	77.4 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	07/16/2009	Read message